I don't know he existed "based on information i noticed, and read" i think Jesus might have a guy, who trying to fight against to romans for their evil laws, in order to teach them to common people he might have told that, i am son of god etc etc, where roman kings claimed themself as gods, didn't like this guy, and killed him.. he might be just revolutionist tried to bright something good at those time...

(21-Aug-2010, 11:06 PM)ayyawar Wrote: That a good question u asked.. why do i like jesus,

I don't know he existed "based on information i noticed, and read" i think Jesus might have a guy, who trying to fight against to romans for their evil laws, in order to teach them to common people he might have told that, i am son of god etc etc, where roman kings claimed themself as gods, didn't like this guy, and killed him.. he might be just revolutionist tried to bright something good at those time...

Even if he did exist, there's absolutely nothing remarkable about the guy in the bible except the parts that you (and all of us) reject- the miracles and the son of god part. That's the only reason christians think he's the shit. Remove that and he's just another guy in history who was just perhaps a little more compassionate than the average person of his day. I say 'his day', because by today's standards Jesus would be an asshole.

(22-Aug-2010, 01:19 AM)ayyawar Wrote: I Partially agree with Ajita Kamal but, we don't have hate anyone, if we do, then doesn't makes us any different from evangelical christians...

I think you are trying to be idealistic. No one is talking about hating people. And none of us could hate a mythical figure. Its bullshit stories that we hate. And what you are doing is cherry picking from a scripture. That is not rational thinking.

(21-Aug-2010, 11:06 PM)ayyawar Wrote: That a good question u asked.. why do i like jesus,

I don't know he existed "based on information i noticed, and read" i think Jesus might have a guy, who trying to fight against to romans for their evil laws, in order to teach them to common people he might have told that, i am son of god etc etc, where roman kings claimed themself as gods, didn't like this guy, and killed him.. he might be just revolutionist tried to bright something good at those time...

Even if he did exist, there's absolutely nothing remarkable about the guy in the bible except the parts that you (and all of us) reject- the miracles and the son of god part. That's the only reason christians think he's the shit. Remove that and he's just another guy in history who was just perhaps a little more compassionate than the average person of his day. I say 'his day', because by today's standards Jesus would be an asshole.

Quote:"In a week or two, that Facebook page will be clean swept of any threats or incitements to violence. If anyone goes back to read it, they'll see Christians and atheists arguing -- not always politely, but without threats. The words on the page will be gone. But for me and my fellow atheists, they will live on as long as we live.

Every day, we have to live with the knowledge that there really are people who wish we were dead. They hate us. They think we are evil hellspawns deserving of nothing better than crucifixion, torture, and death. "

1st prize for irony:

"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.

It chilled my blood to read some of the comments on that screenshot in the above post. It really is ironical (not to mention scary) that a religion that prides itself in the teachings of a forgiving, turn-the-other-cheek god would say the violent things that they did. This is yet another example where people not only accept the delusion of organized religion, but propagate it rabidly, threatening those who oppose the views of their god.
I can only wish for an enlightened society of the future like Sam Harris envisioned where he said people would be embarrassed to identify themselves as a religious person.
And as far as the moderate christian not wishing to be painted with the same "extremist christian" brush goes, I found this logical fallacy that fits it perfectly. It's called No True Scotsman. I'll just copy paste the Wiki page for easy reading.

Quote:No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it.
A simpler rendition would be:Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

The sort of people in that FB discussion are beyond hope of having civil conversations with. We, as atheists, have already answered many times questions about who we are, what we believe in and why we don't believe in religion or concept of god. What we must now focus on is , how to get that message to sink.

"It's alright, I rarely meet anyone who's able to read it properly. Although personally, I never thought that it to be an odd of a name. Once I give people the pronunciation, they tend to remember my name by easily associating me with it. A unique face, a unique moniker."

As a former hard-core fundamentalist christian from a family of pastors, reading the bible repeatedly was the greatest thing you could possibly do. We children were exhorted to keep reading from end to end, hoping that the habit sticks and we see the bible as a guide in our adult lives.
unfortunately, much of the 'times' I have read the bible was at an age when i wouldn't question things.
however, as i grew older, the reading habit proved to be the undoing of my faith.
there are numerous passages in the bible that one can find repugnant and disgusting.
yet, reading the english bible in its king James translation from a young age has, no doubt, increased my love and interest in the English language.